= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Annoyance comments on When It's Not Right to be Rational - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (21)
Let's just be clear. You are very near equivocating on rational. There are two basic definitions, though it may be natural to add more for some reason. Essentially what you are pointing out is that sometimes it's instrumentally rational to be epistemically irrational.
I don't see much of a problem with this. As rationalists, we primarily want to be instrumentally rational. Scratch that, it's the only thing we want (intrinsically). Being epistemically rationally just happens to be the best way to achieve our ends in a large percentage of cases. It also may have a direct component in our utility function, but that's another issue.
There is another definition, one better than either of those two, not only because it is more useful but because it is generally used and recognized.
With sufficiently limited resources, it can be rational (in that sense) to be irrational, if the available resources are sufficiently limited.
I think you forgot to mention what that definition is.
Seriously, Annoyance, it wouldn't kill you to link to your own post. Sheesh.